An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, July 16, 2018, 17:49 (2104 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've always assumed the origin of life (which you refuse to add to the process of evolution) had to provide massive information to cover both form/structure and process/life homeostasis to the original life forms.

dhw: Of course I refuse to add origin of life to evolution. So did Darwin. The origin does not make the slightest difference to the theory of common descent,

Of course the specific act of life's origin is not at issue when evolution is discussed as a process. But every evolutionary process has a beginning, and all I'm pointing out is that the origin contained/provided information which influences how evolution works.

DAVID: Dabbling was a minor set of additional instructions primarily of form, not function, except the Cambrian where major functional processes had to be added. I've had a re-think: there were two major inputs of information at origin of life and at the Cambrian.

dhw: “Additional instructions” sounds like additional information to me, even if it's “minor”. But going back to the first cells, I would suggest that computer programmes installed in the very first cells for every single undabbled innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the long history of life add an unnecessary amount of information needed for evolution. It would suffice if the first cells contained a mechanism that would enable all subsequent life forms to devise their own innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders.

Such a mechanism would add the same 'unnecessary amount of information' you complain about.

DAVID: I believe God guided an evolutionary process. I've never changed, and it is a third way not in your comment.

dhw: Then let us narrow the field: common descent is the opposite of separate creation. When your God dabbled, do you believe he dabbled with existing life forms or that he created them from scratch?

DAVID: I believe God designed the Cambrian Explosion. Is that scratchiness enough?

dhw: So you believe in common descent except for the Cambrian Explosion, and then it was separate creation. I don’t have a problem with that, as the theistic version of my own hypothesis allows for dabbling. The atheistic version leaves the whole of evolution, including the Cambrian, to the intelligence of the cells. My reason for asking was to ascertain to what extent you agreed with Tony’s rejection of common descent, which of course is the bedrock of the theory of evolution.

No, I still think common descent is the proper theory, with God dabbling at points like the Cambrian Explosion.